Improvement of employee performance through perceived organizational

support, organizational justice, and organizational commitment

Nenah Sunarsih
Department of Management, Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia
Email: nenah@ecampus.ut.ac.id

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of perceived organizational support,
organizational justice and organizational commitment on employee performance. The population
in this study is all employees of Universitas Terbuka (UT) where employees are from UT head
office, regional office in Bogor, Bandung, and Denpasar with a total of 190 respondents. The
analytical tool used is multiple linear regression analysis. The results indicated that perceived
organizational support did not have a partial effect on employee performance, organizational
justice, and organizational commitment had a partial effect on employee performance. As for
simultaneous perceived organizational support, organizational justice, and organizational
commitment affected employee performance.

Keywords: employee performance, perceived organizational support, organizational justice,

organizational commitment

1. Background
The role of Human Resources (HR) in the era of industrial revolution 4.0 is very strategic, even
the existence of an organization is determined by its human resources. To be able to survive in
competition, human resources with competency are certainly needed in the use of digital
technology and high organizational performance.
Basically, performance is a reflection of the organization's ability to manage and
allocate its resources. The problems of employee performance are poor perceived
organizational support (POS), lack of organizational justice and employee commitment to the
organization.
Performance is the result of work in quality and quantity that achieved by someone in
carrying out tasks according to the responsibility given to him (Mangkunegara, 2008). To
achieve a good organizational performance, a good employee performance is certainly needed.
Potential factors that affected employee performance are perceived organizational
support, organizational justice, and organizational commitment. Perceived organizational
support is the degree to which employees believe that their organization values their
contributions and care about their well-being (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Susmiati and
Sudarma (2015) associated employee performance with perceived organizational support.
Paruntu (2016) suggested that perceived organizational support is very important to improve
employee performance.
The other factor that affects employee performance is organizational justice. It affects
the perceptions of organization members about the condition of justice they face in their
organization, specifically about the sense of justice related with organizational allocations such
as salary and promotion (Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005). Organizational justice can improve
individual performance, organizational citizenship behavior, good mental health, lower stress
level and a better individual behavior (Li and Cropanzano, 2009).
While organizational commitment is a condition where employees are loyal to an
organization and its goals and have a strong desire to maintain good relations with members
of the organization (Robbins and Judge, 2008). Employees who have high commitment will

1
work hard to achieve company goals and have a strong desire to work and keep fighting in the
organization where they work (Adiapsari 2012).

Performance Concept
Performance is a result or ones of the overall level of success, in carrying out the tasks during
the certain period of time, compared to other possibilities such as output standard, target, goals
or other predefined accepted criteria (Nuraini et al. 2015).
Performance is a result or someone’s success level during a certain period in carrying
out tasks compared to various possibilities, such as standard results of work, targets or
objectives or criteria that have been predefined and agreed together (Rivai, 2005).
Employee performance can be measured through indicators of quantity, quality,
timeliness, effectiveness, and attendance (Mathis & Jackson, 2006). Meanwhile, performance
measures according to Ma’rifah (2004) include work quality, a quantity of work, knowledge,
reliability, presence, and cooperation.
Gomes (2003), performance assessment aims to give a reward on previous
performance and motivate performance improvement in the future.

Perceived Organizational Support (POS) Concept

Perceived organizational support is an important variable that is increasingly being considered
in the business world both in manufacturing and service sectors (Beheshtifar et al., 2013).
Perceived organizational support is the degree to which employees believe their
contributions and welfare are valued by the organization. Perceived organizational support is
employee's perceptions of the organization where they work (Robbins and Judge, 2008).
Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) stated that there are eight indicators used to measure
the level of perceived organizational support, among others, (1) organization values all
employee’s contribution, (2) organization respects the efforts that employees have given to the
company, (3) organization pays attention to all complaints from employees about their work
and personal life, (4) organization cares about employee’s well-being, (5) organization will
notify the employees when they make a mistake at work, (6) organization cares about employee
satisfaction in their work, (7) organization pays attention to employees, (8) organization is
proud of all employee achievements at work.

Organizational Justice Concept

According to the theory of justice, the workers compare what they get from their work to what
they give, as follows (1) their results, such as salary, promotion, recognition, or getting a place
in the office. (2) Their input such as effort, experience, and education (Robbins and Judge,
2015).
The concept of justice is used to explain why employees can judge the fairness of
decisions made by the authorities (Roohi and Feizi, 2013).
Gibson et al. (2012), organizational justice is a level at which an individual feels treated
equally by the organization where he works.

Organizational Commitment Concept

Organizational commitment is the result of organizational leadership in influencing its
followers. Organizational commitment is a feeling of association or psychological and physical
attachment of employees to the organization where they work or as a member of an
organization (Wirawan, 2013).
Organizational commitment is a condition where employees are loyal to their
organization and its goals and have a strong desire to maintain good relations with members
of the organization (Robbins and Judge, 2008).

2
 Meyer and Allen (1991) suggested there are three indicators that can be used to measure
the level of organizational commitment, i.e., affective commitment, continuance commitment,
and normative commitment.
This study aims to analyze the effect of perceived organizational support,
organizational justice and organizational commitment on employee performance.
Conceptually, the correlation in variables can be described as follow:
Perceived
Organizational
Support

Organizational
Justice Performance

Organizational
Commitment

Fig 1. Research Model

Hypotheses
H1: Perceived organizational support has a significant effect on employee performance
H2: Organizational justice has a significant effect on employee performance
H3: Organizational commitment has a significant effect on employee performance
H4: Perceived organizational support, organizational justice, and organizational commitment
has a significant effect on employee performance

2. Methods
The method of data analysis in this study is multiple linear regression analysis, to determine
the effect of two or more independent variables with the dependent variable. The calculation
of multiple linear regression models used SPSS for Windows Release 22.0 program.
The population in this study is all employees of Universitas Terbuka (UT) and the
samples are employees from UT head office, regional office in Bogor, Bandung, and Denpasar
with a total of 190 respondents. The sampling technique used stratified random sampling
probability.
Test validity is the extent to which a test or measuring accurately what we suppose to
measure by correlating between the scores obtained in each question item with a total score of
the individual. Test validity used a computer with SPSS for Windows Version 22.0 program.
Test validity in this study was conducted on 30 respondents. The decision making based on the
calculated value r count (corrected item-total correlation) > r table the amount 0.361, for df = 30–
2 = 28;  = 0.05 then the item or test is valid, vice versa. Based on the results of test validity,
it shows that the indicators of perceived organizational support, organizational justice,
organizational commitment, and employee performance are valid, because r count > r table.
Test reliability made on the statement item. Variables are said to be reliable if the results
are under consistent conditions. Test reliability is only used once on an instrument, then
analyzed using the Cronbach Alpha method. The instrument is said to be reliable if the
reliability coefficient is positive and > 0.6. The results of test reliability can be seen in Table
1.
Table 1. Reliability Test
Item Variable R Alpha. R Kritis Criteria
1 POS 0.940 0.600 Reliable
2 Organizational Justice 0,954 0.600 Reliable
3 Organizational Commitment 0,877 0.600 Reliable
4 Employee Performance 0,897 0.600 Reliable

3
 3. Results
Characteristics of Respondents
Based on the result of respondents description, there are 91 men (48%) and 99 women
(52%). Most respondents are > 50 years old (54%). The education level of respondents is
Post-graduate (46%). The majority of employees time in grade > 30 years (30%).

The Classical Assumption Test

The normality test with One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test method using SPSS assistance
can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2.
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Organizational Organizational Employee
POS Justice Commitment Performance
N 190 190 190 190
Normal Parametersa,b Mean 37.5474 42.5684 32.3474 44.6474
Std.
4.65820 5.44361 3.54642 4.43016
Deviation
Most Extreme Absolute .128 .155 .167 .166
Differences Positive .114 .121 .167 .166
Negative -.128 -.155 -.089 -.112
Test Statistic .128 .155 .167 .166
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000c .000c .000c .000c
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
c. Lilliefors Significance Correction.
The normality test result indicates that the data is normally distributed. This is indicated
by the Kolmogorov Smirnov value of 4 variables having significant values, POS 0.128,
organizational justice 0.155, organizational commitment 0.167 and employee performance
variable 0.166. Where the level of significance in this study is above α = 5% or 0.05 (0.243>
0.05). It means the data in all the variables used in this study are normally distributed.
Multicollinearity test using SPSS version 22 can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3.
Multicollinearity Test
Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 19.362 2.774 6.979 .000
POS -.076 .081 -.080 -.940 .348 .486 2.059
Organizational Justice .191 .072 .235 2.671 .008 .450 2.223
Organizational
.618 .082 .495 7.548 .000 .811 1.233
Commitment
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
The Multicollinearity test result indicates that three independent variables, they are
POS, organizational justice, and organizational commitment show VIF numbers less than 10
and tolerance value above 0.10. Then it is concluded that the regression model is not
multicollinearity, it is good to use.
According to Ghozali (2013), a good regression model is a regression that is free from
autocorrelation. If there is a correlation, it is called an autocorrelation problem. Autocorrelation
test was carried out using the Durbin-Watson test (DW-test) with the following conditions:

4
 Table 4. Autocorrelation Test
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 .593a .352 .342 3.59419 2.117
a. Predictors: (Constant), POS, organizational justice, organizational commitment
b. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Based on the results of the autocorrelation test with Durbin-Watson it can be seen that
the value of Durbin-Watson (DW) is 2.117. This value is compared with an alpha table value
of 5%, the number of samples (n) is 190 and the number of independent variables is 3 (k = 3),
then the Durbin Watson table value is dL = 1.7306 and du = 1.7947 get from the table Durbin-
Watson (DW), α = 5%). DW value = 2.117 is greater than a value which is equal to 1.7947 and
less than (4 - du) = 2.2053, so it can be concluded that there is no autocorrelation.

Testing the Accuracy of the Model

F-Test
F-test is used to test whether the three independent variables simultaneously influence the
dependent variable. In this study, the method uses comparing the value of F-count and F-table.
If F-count < F-table, then the independent variables simultaneously do not influence the
dependent variable (hypothesis rejected). If F-count > F-table, then independent variables
simultaneously influence the dependent variable (hypothesis accepted). The F-test can be seen
in Table 5.
Table 5. F-test
ANOVAa
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square Fhitung Sig.
1 Regression 1306.592 3 435.531 33.715 .000b
Residual 2402.781 186 12.918
Total 3709.374 189
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance

The coefficient of determination test (R2 test) is used to measure how far the model's ability to
explain the variation of the dependent variable. In this study, the coefficient of determination
uses the adjusted R2 value.
Table 6. R2 test
Model Summary
Adjusted R
Model R R Square Square Std. Error of the Estimate
a
1 .593 .352 .342 3.59419
a. Predictors: (Constant), POS, Organizational Justice, Organizational Commitment

From R2 test results, obtained the adjusted R2 value of 0.342 or 34.2%. It shows that employee
performance can be explained 34.2% by independent variables, they are POS, Organizational
Justice and Organizational Commitment. In this study, 65.8% of the variance in employee
performance is explained by variables besides independent variables.

Hypothesis Testing
Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
The results of multiple linear regression analysis can be seen in Table 7.

5
 Table 7. Multiple Regression
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 19.362 2.774 6.979 .000
POS -.076 .081 -.080 -.940 .348
Organizational Justice .191 .072 .235 2.671 .008
Organizational
.618 .082 .495 7.548 .000
Commitment
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Based on the regression coefficient, the regression equations that can be formed are:
Y = α + β1 X1 + β2 X2 + β3 X3 + 
Y = 19.362 – 0.076X1+0.191X2+ 0.618X3+ 
T-Test
The t statistic test basically indicates how far the effect of one independent variable partially
in explaining the variety of dependent variables. This research uses the significance level of
0.05 (α = 5%) for POS variables, organizational justice, and organizational commitment. If t
count <t-table, then independent variable partially does not influence dependent variable
(hypothesis rejected). If t-count > t-table, then independent variable partially influences
dependent variable (hypothesis accepted). The strength of the correlation that occurs on each
independent variable to the dependent variable as follows:
1. The first hypothesis proposed by researchers is that POS variable affects employee
performance. Based on the result of POS variable regression analysis has a value of t -0.94
lower than t-table 1.97 and obtained a significance value of 0.348 greater than the significance
level of 0.05 (0.348> 0.05). It can be concluded that "there is an influence of POS on employee
performance,” the hypothesis is rejected.
2. The second hypothesis where organizational justice has a value of t-count 2,671 is greater
than t-table 1.97 and obtains a significance value of 0.008 smaller than the significance level
of 0.05 (0.008 <0.05). Then it can be concluded that “organizational justice variable influences
employee performance”, the hypothesis is accepted.
3. The third hypothesis where organizational commitment variable has an at-count value of
7.548 greater than t-table 1.97 and obtains a significance value of 0.000 smaller than the
significance level of 0.05 (0,000 <0.05). It can be concluded that “organizational commitment
influences employee performance”, the hypothesis is accepted.

The Effect of Perceived Organizational Support on Employee Performance

The result of hypothesis testing indicates that perceived organizational support has a negative
influence on employee performance. It means that the higher Perceived Organizational
Support, the lower employee performance. This means that it is not in accordance with the
theory that the higher perceived organizational support, the higher the performance of
employees. The results of this analysis indicate that the higher perceived organizational support
will reduce employee performance. But the results of this study are in line with Ihtian's
research, H (2014) in the Business Journal of Theory and Implementation entitled "The Effect
of Perception of Organizational Support and Psychological Empowerment on Performance
mediated by Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Central Bureau of Statistics special
region of Yogyakarta where the results of the study show that there is no direct and positive
influence between perceptions of organizational support and performance.

6
The Effect of Organizational Justice on Employee Performance
The result of hypothesis testing indicates that organizational justice has a positive influence on
employee performance. The results mean that higher organizational justice, the higher
employee performance. This means that the higher the organizational justice, the higher the
employee performance. The results of this study support the research of Kristanto, H (2015) in
the Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship (JMK), entitled "Organizational Justice,
Organizational Commitment and Employee Performance" with the results of research that
organizational justice has a positive influence on employee performance. Besides that, it is in
line with the research of Dar-ham, M, Djumlani, A & Amin, J (2015) in the Administrative
Reform Journal, entitled "The Influence of Organizational Justice on Employee performance
at the Department of Industry and Trade of Samarinda City". The results of the study are that
there is a significant influence between the independent variables of organizational justice
which includes distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice on the
dependent variable (employee performance).

The Effect of Organizational Commitment on Employee Performance

The result of hypothesis testing indicates that organizational commitment has a positive
influence on employee performance. This result means that the higher organizational
commitment, the higher employee performance. These results mean that the higher the
organizational commitment, the higher the employee's performance. The results of this study
support the study of Prihantoro, A (2012) in the Unimus Journal, entitled "Improving the
Performance of Human Resources through Motivation, Discipline, Work Environment, and
Commitment (Case Study of Madrasas in the Salafiyah Foundation, Kajen, Margoyoso, Pati)"
with the results of the study are the influence of commitment to the performance of human
resources.

Conclusion
Based on the result of the analysis in this study, it can be concluded that Perceived
Organizational Support does not have a partial significant effect on employee performance,
but organizational justice and organizational commitment have it on employee performance.
As for perceived organizational support, organizational justice and organizational commitment
have a simultaneously significant effect on employee performance.

4. References
Allen, N.J dan J.P. Meyer. 1991. The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance
and Normative Commitment to the Organizational. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 63
(1): 1-18.

Agusta, L. & E. M. Susanto. 2013. Pengaruh Pelatihan dan Motivasi Kerja terhadap Kinerja
Karyawan. Jurnal AGORA. 1 (3).

Adiapsari, R. 2012. Analisis Pengaruh Iklim Organisasi terhadap Komitmen dengan Kepuasan
Kerja sebagai Variabel Mediasi pada Karyawan PT. Tiga Serangkai Solo. Jurnal Riset
Manajemen dan Akuntansi. 3 (5): 75-102.

Beheshtifar, M. and G. R. Hesani. 2013. Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB): A Factor

to Decrease Organizational Conflict. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business. 5(1): 214-222.

7
Gibson, J. L., Donnelly, J. H., Ivancevich, J. M., & Konopaske, R. 2012. Organizations:
Behavior, structure, processes. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

Gomes, F.C. 2003. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset.

Ghozali, I. 2013. Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program SPSS. Edisi Ketujuh.
Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.

Ihtian, H. 2014. Pengaruh Persepsi Dukungan Organisasi dan Pemberdayaan Psikologis

Terhadap Kinerja yang di mediasi Organizational Citizenhip Behavior di Badan Pusat Statistik
Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Jurnal Bisnis Teori dan Implementasi. V. (1):138-149.

Li, A. and R. Cropanzano. 2009. Do East Asians Respond More/Less Strongly to

Organizational Justice than North Americans? A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management
Studies. 46 (5): 787-805.

Mangkunegara, A.A. Anwar Prabu. 2008. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Bandung: PT.
Remaja Rosdakarya.

Ma’rifah, D. 2004. Pengaruh Motivasi Kerja dan Budaya Organisasi Terhadap Kinerja
Pekerja Sosial Pada Unit Pelaksana Teknis Dinas Sosial Propinsi Jawa Timur. Tesis
Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya. http://www.damandiri.or.id/

Nuraini, E., A. Hermawan., A. V. Hubeis & N. K. Panjaitan. 2015. The impact of management
development program to employees, job performances of a telecommunication company in
Indonesia. European Journal of Business and Management. 7(11): 161-168.

Prihantoro, A. 2012. Peningkatan Kinerja Sumber Daya Manusia melalui Motivasi, Disiplin,
Lingkungan kerja, dan Komitmen (Studi Kasus Madrasah di Lingkungan Yayasan Salafiyah,
Kajen, Margoyoso, Pati). Jurnal Unimus. 8 (2): 78-98.

Paruntu, S. G. 2016. The influence of perceived organizational support on job performance

(Study at The Main Office of PT. Bank Sulut Go Manado). EMBA, 4(2): 077-085.

Parker dan Kohlmeyer. 2005. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job
enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 83(6). 835–
852.

Rivai, V. 2005. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia untuk Perusahaan. Dari Teori ke Praktik.
Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Robbins, Stephen P. dan Timothy A. Judge. (Ratna Saraswati dan Febriella Sirait,
Penerjemah). 2015. Perilaku Organisasi “Organizational Behaviour”, 16th Edition. Jakarta:
Salemba Empat.

Roohi, M dan Mohammad Feizi. 2013. Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour in Islamic Azad University. International Journal of Management Research and
Review. 3(3): 2513-2521.

8
Rhoades, L. and R. Eisenberger. 2002. Perceived organizational support: a review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology. 87(4): 698–714.

Robbins, P.S., Judge, A.T. 2008. Perilaku Organisasi, ed.12. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.

Susmiati & K. Sudarma. 2015. Pengaruh Budaya Organisasi dan Dukungan Organisasi
Persepsian terhadap Kinerja Karyawan dengan Komitmen Organisasi sebagai Variabel
Intervening. Management Analysis Journal. 4(1): 79-87.

Wirawan. 2013. Kepemimpinan Teori, Psikologi, Perilaku Organisasi, Aplikasi dan Penelitian
Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.